Category Archives: Wall Street Journal

The Appeal of Donald Trump

Posted on by
6

 

Donald Trump is having a huge impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential race and lots of people are trying to understand why. In a previous post I wrote that the Republican Party needs to figure out where all of the Trump supporters are coming from and then try to keep these people under a perhaps larger Republican tent.
Capture1
A very good explanation of the Trump phenomenon comes from the AEI social scientist, Charles Murray, writing in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. Says Mr. Murray:

  • The long time American Creed of egalitarianism, liberty and individualism is losing its authority and its substance. One of the most widely acknowledged aspects of American exceptionalism is the lack of class consciousness.
  • This lack of class consciousness has now been replaced by the emergence of a new upper class, a new lower class and the plight of the working class caught in between.
  • The new upper class is characterized by its condescension toward ordinary Americans. Mainstream America is fully aware of this condescension and contempt and is irritated by it. It may mean that American egalitarianism is coming to an end.
  • In the 1960s, white working class men in their 30s and 40s were almost all working and almost all married. But, as shown in the chart, these high labor participation and marriage rates have dropped dramatically in the past 50 years.
  • The success of the civil rights and feminist movements, both classic invocations of the American Creed, have led to a large scale ideological defection from the pillars of liberty and individualism. The problem is that affirmative action demands that people be treated as groups. Equality of outcome trumps equality before the law.
  • By the 1980s Democratic elites largely subscribed to an ideology in conflict with liberty and individualism. This produced the Reagan Democrats.
  • During the past half-century, American corporations exported millions of high-paying jobs while the federal government allowed the immigration, legal and illegal, of tens of millions of competitors for the remaining working class jobs.

As Mr. Murray says, “if you are dismayed by Trumpism don’t kid yourself that it will go away if Donald Trump fails to win the Republican nomination. Trumpism is an expression of the legitimate anger that many Americans feel about the course the country has taken.”

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Why the GOP Should Reconcile with Donald Trump II. How to Do It.

Posted on by
Reply

 

As I have stated over and over again on this blog, It Does Not Add Up, my greatest concern for our country is the lack of fiscal responsibility amongst our national leaders.  The public debt (on which we pay interest) is $13 trillion, which is 74% of GDP.  This is way too high for peacetime and, furthermore, it is very likely to just keep getting worse until serious steps are taken to shrink it (as a percentage of GDP).
CaptureIt is my opinion that the Republicans are more serious than the Democrats about fixing this problem.  Therefore I want the Republicans to nominate a presidential candidate who has a good chance of being elected in November.  I don’t know if Donald Trump is that candidate but he is attracting a whole new group of people to the Republican cause.  They are working class whites who have fallen away from the Democratic Party.
Republicans can reach these voters, as Trump is doing, with suitable policies such as:

  • Immigration. Rather than “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” which would put most of our current illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, we should adopt the principle, “All the immigrants we need but only the immigrants we need.”  A tightly constrained Guest Worker program, enforced with border control and eVerify, would accomplish this.
  • Free Trade. Trade agreements are still possible but need to include provisions like Trade Adjustment Assistance or other programs to help retrain laid-off workers for the millions of well paying, high skill jobs in the U.S. which are hard to fill.
  • Tax Policy. Rather than skewing tax cuts mainly for the wealthy, as most of the Republican candidates propose, they should be applied equally to all income levels, and fully paid for by shrinking deductions which mostly benefit the wealthy. This would put more money in the pockets of all middle income workers and create more and better jobs at the same time by speeding up economic growth.

Conclusion. Donald Trump has lots of negatives as a presidential candidate but Republicans can, and hopefully will, learn a lot from his very successful campaign so far.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Why the GOP Should Reconcile with Donald Trump

Posted on by
6

 

I am a non-ideological fiscal conservative. I don’t judge government as being either too large or too small.  I just want to pay for however much government we do have without going into debt.  Such an approach normally leads to political compromise whereby Congress tries to operate efficiently and hold costs down, only raising taxes as a last resort when it is impossible to squeeze any more low priority programs out of the system.
Such common sense used to be a fundamental operating principle, adhered to by both political parties.  Unfortunately in recent years we have moved away from this model.  In fact our public debt (on which we pay interest) has rapidly accumulated to $13 trillion, 74% of GDP, and will continue to grow much higher unless we strongly change our ways.
In some ways our current presidential campaign is following a conventional path.  Both of the major Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, want to expand federal programs and raise taxes to pay for the new spending.  The Republican Tea Party candidate, Ted Cruz, is a constitutional and social conservative and wants to cut back on government programs.  The leading Republican establishment candidate, Marco Rubio, supports modest new programs, such as expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and also modest tax reform to stimulate the economy.
Capture0The wild card in the presidential race is Donald Trump.  He is a secular populist with unconventional and even contradictory policy views.  He not only leads the Republican field in most polls, he is steadily pulling ahead.  He is doing all this by attracting huge support from working class white voters who have fallen away from the Democratic Party.  In other words, he is potentially expanding the Republican base and therefore should be taken very seriously.
Question. Can a fiscal conservative (who just wants to balance the budget!) but who also wants to address the very serious social problems in American society, support a Donald Trump candidacy for president?  I am struggling with this question.  Stay tuned!

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

 

After Two Years of Steady Job Growth, It’s Time to Bite the Bullet and Balance the Budget!

Posted on by
2

 

For the past two weeks I have been I have been complaining about Congress’s irresponsible budget for 2016 and that we should now be pushing hard for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.  In my last post I make the case that a flexible BBA is compatible with economic growth and will, in fact, contribute to it once it goes into effect.
CaptureFriday’s job report for December strengthens this argument:

  • In 2015 there was an increase of 2.65 million new jobs only slightly less than 2014’s 3.15 million new jobs, the two best years for job growth since 2000.
  • The current unemployment rate of 5.0% is the best since the end of 2006.
  • Although wage growth at 2.4% for 2015 is not as strong as the early 2000’s, wages have now been climbing 2% faster than price inflation for the past three years.
  • The offsetting negatives are a still slow GDP growth estimated at 2.2% for 2015 and a still very low labor participation rate of 62.6%.

Conclusion:  At some point in the very near future the government needs to stop spending far in excess of tax revenue.  The sooner we recognize this the easier it will be to make the necessary correction.  Our economy is the strongest it has been since the end of the Great Recession in June of 2009.  Getting government spending in better sync with tax collections will be a big challenge and will not happen overnight.  In fact, if a BBA is required to get the job done it will take several years to implement this route to fiscal responsibility.
For all of these reasons now is the time to start moving on this gigantic and festering problem!

Is a Balanced Budget Amendment Compatible with Economic Growth?

Posted on by
Reply

 

I have devoted several recent posts to discussing the desirability of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as the specifics of how to set it up in an effective yet flexible manner.
CaptureThe Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip has a pertinent article along this line in today’s paper, “Don’t Celebrate the End of Austerity” in which he argues that the recent congressional deal for the current 2016 budget year, which I and many others have criticized as being fiscally irresponsible, will finally contribute to economic growth after five years of overly “austere” budgets.
This raises the critical question: is it possible to speed up economic growth without the stimulus of deficit spending?  Would a BBA create a stranglehold on spending which would slow down the economy? I feel very strongly that fiscal responsibility and economic growth are compatible and, in fact, contribute to each other in the long run.  Here is what we should do:

  • First of all, either through Congressional action or with a Constitutional Convention, a BBA needs to be proposed, and then ratified, to put our fiscal house in order before our rapidly growing debt rises to ruinous levels. A flexible BBA would include a five year phase in period, after ratification, to give Congress time to prepare for it. There will be some pain in achieving this initial balance but it needs to be done and the sooner the better.
  • Secondly, a flexible BBA would also allow for a 2/3 majority of each House to override strict balance. This feature could be used not only for a wartime emergency, for example, but also for occasional recessionary periods where stimulus is needed.
  • Finally, keep in mind that the real goal is not a BBA per se, but rather to put our debt on a downward path over time as a percentage of GDP. This is what a flexible BBA will accomplish.

Once initial balance is achieved, it will be relatively easy to hold new debt down to manageable levels. Our current fiscal problem will then be largely solved and we can continue building a stronger, freer and more prosperous future for our country.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Republican Congress Approves Irresponsible Budget

Posted on by
Reply

 

Congress has adjourned for Christmas having passed a final budget for the 2016 Fiscal Year extending through next September. It puts into place for this year the two year spending agreement reached between Congress and the President in October.  However Congress started out the year by passing a ten year budget plan resolution leading to a balanced budget by 2025.  The budget just passed leads instead to a deficit of $1.1 trillion in 2025.
CaptureHere are the details as described by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:

  • Revenue: decreased under new budget by a $650 billion (over ten years) by making various temporary tax deductions permanent.
  • Discretionary Spending: increased by $50 billion for the current budget year (by breaking the sequester cap).
  • Medicare: instead of saving $430 billion over ten years, Medicare spending is increased by $95 billion over ten years.
  • 2025 Deficit: instead of shrinking to zero in ten years, it is now projected to be more than $1 trillion in 2025.
  • 2025 Debt: currently the (public, on which we pay interest) debt is 74% of GDP. The ten year balanced budget plan would reduce the debt to 56% of GDP. Instead, the debt is now on track to reach 80% of GDP by 2025.

Granted the Republican Congress hopes to develop a tax reform plan in 2016 which would lower tax rates for everyone, paid for by closing many of the loopholes and deductions just approved last week. One very good way to do this has recently been proposed by the Tax Foundation. The TF plan would boost economic growth and thereby increase tax revenue substantially over ten years.
The problem is that real tax reform is unlikely to happen without a Republican president in office.  If a Democratic president is elected in 2016, then the dire predictions made by the CRFB (above) are likely to remain valid for the foreseeable future. Our fiscal and economic future remains quite precarious at the present time!

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Lowering the Cost of American Healthcare III. Single Payer?

Posted on by
2

 

My last two posts, here and here, argue that the high costs of American healthcare, almost double what other developed countries pay per-capita, has two fundamental causes which must be addressed:

  • Very low out-of-pocket costs as a result of the tax exclusion for employer provided care.
  • The very expensive, and rapidly growing, government entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid.
    Capture4

It is often suggested that the best way to get these high costs under control is for the U.S. to adopt a single-payer, government run, healthcare system, like many other developed nations have done. Writing in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the policy analyst, Nathan Nascimento, makes a persuasive, and well referenced, counter argument to this suggestion:

  • The State of Vermont recently backed away from implementing a single payer system because of the very high tax increase which would have been required, more than doubling Vermont’s annual budget.
  • The State of Colorado will vote a year from now on a petition-supported single payer proposal, ColoradoCare, which would be paid for by a $26 billion annual state tax increase and is therefore unlikely to pass.
  • In Canada, which has a single payer system, the average wait between a general practitioner’s referral and delivery of treatment was more than four months in 2013.
  • Our own Veterans Affairs hospital system, a single payer system on an annual budget, is failing thousands of veterans who often die while waiting for treatment.
  • Medicare, an open ended single payer entitlement system, now costing almost $600 billion per year, is one of the main causes of our burgeoning, out of control, national debt.

Conclusion: For the U.S. to move to a national single payer system would be very risky and very costly. It is far better to wait and see if Colorado or some other state is willing to take such a leap of faith and then see how it works out in that context.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

A Path for Climate Change beyond Paris

Posted on by
2

 

The United Nations climate conference has just opened in Paris.  The pledges that countries are making fall way short of what many say is needed to solve the problem of climate change.  The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project based in Paris and New York describes what will be needed to get the job done:
Capture

  • The 2 degree C temperature increase benchmark is used even though it is an arbitrary threshold. “Hell is not going to break loose at two degrees – it will take hundreds of years to unfold.” The world has so far warmed .9 degree C since 1880, halfway to the threshold.
  • The technologies available today, such as solar power and wind turbines, while good enough to get a running start on the transition, are not good enough to finish it.
  • Many countries will need to keep burning coal or natural gas to generate power while capturing the carbon dioxide emerging from smoke stacks, compressing it and injecting it deep underground. In fact most fossil fuel energy producers do not appear to be putting much effort into this approach.
  • Governments could easily flub the energy transition by failing to plan far enough ahead. Most countries are setting 10 and 15 year targets that can be met with incremental changes.
  • To achieve emissions goals, entire economies, including transportation, needs to be electrified as much as possible. Spending a lot of effort, as the U.S. is doing, trying to make gasoline cars more efficient, may be going down a blind alley.
  • Another potential dead end would be an overreliance on natural gas, which emits only half as much carbon as coal. This helps in the short run but gas has to go away within a few decades. Thus heavy investment in natural gas pipelines and power plants now could undermine long term goals.

The point is that the DDPP, designed to hold a global temperature increase to just 2 degrees C from preindustrial times, is extremely demanding.  It will require massive governmental interference in the energy economies of both developed and developing countries all over the world.    A far, far better approach is for leading world economies such as the U.S., Western Europe, China and Japan to provide leadership by implementing a tax on carbon emissions and thereby create an economic incentive for the fossil fuel industry to decarbonize itself.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

 

Does the U.S. Care About Europe?

Posted on by
2

 

“After Paris, Islamic State’s rise and Syria’s agony are shaking a weakened Europe – and the broader international system,” writes the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. “Can the U.S. summon the will to respond?”
Capture“What the U.S. now does or doesn’t do in Syria will affect the future stability of Europe, the strength of trans-Atlantic relations and therefore the well-being of the liberal world order. … Just as in the 1990s, when Europeans could address the crisis in the Balkans only with the U.S. playing the dominant military role, so again America will have to take the lead, provide the troops, supply the bulk of the air power and pull together those willing and able to join the effort.”
Such an effort would require:

  • Establishing a safe zone in Syria to avoid having more refugees flood Europe and provide a place to return for those who have already fled. This would require not only U.S. airpower but also ground forces numbering up to 30,000.
  • An additional 10,000 – 20,000 troops to uproot Islamic state from its havens in Syria and Iraq.
  • An internationally negotiated transition in Syria ushering Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government to hold nationwide elections.

As Mr. Kagan reminds us the U.S. has taken lots of police actions in the last 70 years since the end of WWII:  Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Kuwait, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq being the big ones.  “Not today.  Americans remain paralyzed by Iraq, Republicans almost as much as Democrats, and Mr. Obama is both the political beneficiary and the living symbol of this paralysis.  He may be the first president since the end of WWII who simply doesn’t care what happens to Europe.”
Mr. Kagan concludes, “Perhaps there are Europeans today wishing that the U.S. will not compound its error of commission in Iraq by making an equally unfortunate error of omission in Syria.  They can certainly hope.”

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

 

How to Defeat ISIS

Posted on by
1

 

The lead story in yesterday’s New York Times, “Experts Explain How Global Powers Can Smash ISIS,” starts out “Much of the world agrees that the Islamic State needs to be crushed.  But how can that be accomplished?”
CaptureHere is the strategy espoused in the NYT article and also by Garry Kasparov, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

  • Assad must go. “For the U.S. and the West to ally with Iran, Russia and the Assad regime in Syria would be morally repugnant, strategically disastrous and entirely unnecessary.”
  • The importance of the Sunnis. “To beat ISIS you need the enlistment of the Sunnis and this won’t happen as long as Assad remains in power.” Removing Assad “would immediately have the support of Turkey and Saudi Arabia.” “The 2007 U.S. military surge in Iraq was so successful because it included the protection and recruitment of Sunni tribes to fight Sunni extremists.” “The hasty exit from Iraq left the Sunnis at the mercy of a hostile Shiite government.”
  • Troops on the ground. “Anything less than a major U.S. and NATO-led ground offensive against ISIS will be a guarantee of continued failure and more terror attacks in the West.”
  • Long term governance. “For the long term, eradicating the Islamic State and other violent Jihadi groups will require drastic reforms in the nature of Middle East governments. ISIS thrives on their failures.”

After the Paris attacks, the West now realizes that ISIS represents a huge threat to world peace and stability.  Hopefully the U.S. is also beginning to realize that only it can provide the leadership to organize an effective response.
I will soon return to talking about the fiscal and economic issues which I usually dwell on.  Every once in a while another major issue intervenes and takes precedence.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3